From Burma to Nagasaki: the man who walked through hell

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/nagasaki-man-who-walked-through-hell-jan-bras

by rdl • 11 years ago

114 45 11 years ago

rdl2• 11 years ago

What struck me is how much better the world is today; aside from the risk of global thermonuclear war, a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible, and even smaller conflicts are becoming less frequent and shorter duration.

And how he responded to all of this -- became a doctor, spent the rest of his life trying to minimize suffering in the world. And still believes dropping the bomb was right.

llamataboot• 11 years ago

I'm not sure how you can say this with such certainty. We're less than two generations out from the last "world war", we arguably have other countries and regions that would be involved in the next world war, and resources continue to get more scarce without any sign that the globe (and the developed, industrialized countries) have learned to "share"

mikeash• 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure the sentiment that a large war has been made impossible, either through technology or politics or both, pre-dates the first World War. Certainly after the first World War, it was thought that war had thus become so horrible that it would never happen like that again.

MAD has worked pretty well so far. It seems almost certain that there would have been a massive third World War by now if nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. But that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, especially since MAD is a lot harder to work with in a multi-polar world (there are currently nine countries with nuclear weapons).

colechristensen3• 11 years ago

There are no long-term resource worries in the developed world.

This goes against the folk-wisdom and fear-mongering present in a lot of popular culture, but it isn't true.

In the developed world fertility rates are below unity. Oil, at it's recent peak was competitive with solar. Resources aren't going to run out, the prices are just going to change – some resources will have to be more aggressively recycled, others will have to be replaced. Billionaires are thinking about asteroid mining. Nobody in the developed world is going to start wars over shortages.

There's a huge amount of arable land which is either unused or grown with only the most primitive techniques. Modern agriculture requires a fairly advanced economy, but it is orders of magnitude more productive.

"Resources are scarce" is a very believable lie, and it's easy to misuse statistics to prove it's true.

Remember "peak oil"? It wasn't true before and now nobody really cares that much.

The best car in the world is American and electric. In a few years they'll be selling one suitable for the middle class. We don't _need_ oil for energy, but we're going to use it until the economies of developing technology overtake the increasingly more costly fossil fuels.

In a generation or two people will stop fearing nuclear, and fusion will become economically viable.

drumdance• 11 years ago

The Iraq war lasted much longer than WW2, and more Iraqui civilians died than US soldiers in WW2, though granted it's still a small number compared to what Russia and others lost.

adventured2• 11 years ago

That's not accurate.

The Iraqi body count project concluded 174,000 Iraqis died due to the conflict (both the invasion and civil war), between 2003 and 2013 (with between 112,000 and 123,000 being civilians).

The Associated Press reached a similar number, based on the Iraqi Health Ministry.

The reports claiming upwards of a million died aren't even remotely credible, and were all based on extremely small household surveys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

aikah• 11 years ago

What struck me is how much better the world is today

Deterrence is a good thing indeed, as long as one has nukes...

But is the world really better today?

a WW2-scale war is essentially impossible,

I don't think so. Mankind never learns. It's just a matter of time before we go back to 'savage' mode on a global scale. it's very easy for governments dehumanize people, and propaganda has never been as powerful as today. Once the 'ennemy' is reduced to something less than human, it's easier to make others torture,enslave or kill him. 1,1000 or 10 millions it doesn't matter.

marktangotango• 11 years ago

Agreed, we all must be forever vigilant to the possibility we could be deceived, that the atrocities of the past could happen again. The polyanna-ish attitude of the OP is intolerable in this regard.

adventured2• 11 years ago

Mankind's natural resting state is peace, not violence. The extreme majority of all humans throughout history have been peaceful, not violent 'savages.' Violence by any given individual person against another is the extreme outlier, not the common.

Historically death from war is the result of a very small percentage of the global population acting violently. It is not the result of a majority of people acting violently.

Simple proof: what percentage of the world population belonged to the side of the aggressors in WW1 or WW2?

You can apply the same premise to any historical scenario. What percentage of Cambodians were involved in the massacres committed by Pol Pot's regime? What percentage of North Koreans are involved in violently repressing their fellow North Koreans? The general answer is obvious: most North Koreans are peaceful, most Cambodians were peaceful, rather than savages.

Yes, the world is getting drastically better.

Living standards are much higher and continue to climb. Child / infant mortality is drastically lower. Our ability to treat, cure, or wipe out diseases is far beyond anything from 50 years ago. Large scale starvation is becoming extremely rare.

War between leading nations hasn't occurred in 70 years, a record likely unmatched in recorded history.

waxenfigurine• 11 years ago

Two contemporary factors that argue for less war making stand out for me. One is technology, already being touched on elsewhere in this thread. Militaries now command destructive power that better approximates what is required to accomplish a goal, enabled by technological improvements (i.e. footage of the JDAM guiding itself through a structure's window during the Gulf conflict).

Another factor is that the age of commercial airliners and the global transport systems has made efficient global migration & trade a reality for decades now. What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings? Perhaps this is now the quintessential limiting factor in making war.

Um, combined with societies becoming more sex-positive, we are edging closer to realizing the mantra Make Love, Not War!

ak217• 11 years ago

What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings?

The bitter truth that Russians have to deal with is that most of the population is so susceptible to being brainwashed, they will gladly turn on their brothers and sisters after a few years of watching state-controlled media.

protomyth• 11 years ago

What citizens would accept attacking their brothers and sisters in another country, attacking their trading partners with whom they make their livings?

You might want to take a look at the data of import / exports for countries in Europe before WWII. Being someone biggest trading partner didn't stop anyone's attacks.

sixQuarks• 11 years ago

a WW2 scale war is absolutely still possible. Back before WWI started, there were many economists that said war between modern countries was basically impossible due to all the economic trade. Not only did WWI happen, but an even worse war happened relatively shortly afterwards.

will_brown2• 11 years ago

I tend to agree the world is much better today.

However, to keep things in perspective I have highlight 3 recent wars/genocides:

1. The Great African War/the African World War (1998-2003): 5.4M deaths (some estimates as high as 20M); 2. Bosnian Genocide (1992-1995): 100,000 deaths; 3. Darfur Genocide (2003-ongoing?): 500,000 deaths and counting, 3 million displaced.

While my examples are no where near the scale of WW2, perhaps hidden in there is a much larger human tragedy. Namely how few people are familiar with the existence of these 3 modern events that took the lives of 6M people in the last 20 years.

abrak• 11 years ago

I agree that the amount of lives lost post WW2 have been largely ignored.. You may find this visualisation of deaths in WW2 interesting: https://vimeo.com/128373915

tomjen3• 11 years ago

Essentially everybody has heard about 2 and 3, as well as Rowanda, which you left out, but a quick look to wikipedia shows that most of the people who died in 1 died of disease and malnutrition and also that the conflict to place in Congo.

Basically there is a place in the world that is consistently behind the rest - sub saharan Africa - where all your examples, other than the one in Bosnia, came from.

And Bosnia is arguably a very important exception, at least I don't recall any other genocides in the developed world since 1950.

acdanger• 11 years ago

I didn't interpret anything in the article that led me to think he believes (or believed at the time, even) that bombing Nagasaki was the right thing to do.

eceppda• 11 years ago

I had the same interpretation.

I noted that he still (understandably) doesn't forgive the Japanese, but that could be entirely separate from the decision to use atomic weapons against civilians.

nicholas73• 11 years ago

“Well, chance is a funny thing,” he says. “Why should I be angry about the bad things that occur and still accept the good things? I really do not understand life. I do not know what it’s all about.”

Remarkable wisdom in this quote.

gambiting• 11 years ago

"This particular guard had never beaten him and had always been polite. The guard saluted Bras. Bras looked away, refusing to return the salute.

“Until now, I regret it,” Bras says. “I often think of it.”"

This is also very profound, it's usually things we haven't done which come haunting us through the years.

philliphaydon• 11 years ago

While I gather he has never forgiven Japan, what struck me was despite everything, not all Japanese believed in what they were doing. And still respected those men and offered food. There's good everywhere even in the worst of times.

euske2• 11 years ago

Oh my goodness. I am reading this at work and I am crying (sorry, boss). Partly because of the story itself, but also because of the realization that Japan (which I happen to be a citizen of) has learned very little since then. Thanks for sharing a great article.

sdrothrock2• 11 years ago

but also because of the realization that Japan (which I happen to be a citizen of) has learned very little since then.

Could you shed some light on what you're referring to?

euske2• 11 years ago

Recent resurgence of the "national pride" thing. The forced reinterpretation of the Constitution. Unreasonable hatred towards neighboring countries (China and Korea in particular). And worst of all, we aren't taught anything about these Japanese atrocities at school. Japan is still enjoying willful ignorance.

nandemo• 11 years ago

I'm not gp but the tl;dr is: Japanese government has been pushing for a stronger military.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons...

Article 9 in Japan's Constitution, added after WWII, essentially forbids Japan to maintain armed forces for the purpose of waging war.

In practice Japan does some armed forces, called Self-Defence Forces, but they're for self-defence only. For example, they cannot join US forces for combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, as other US allies do.

Recently, the Japanese government has been pushing for a change in the laws (or in the interpretation thereof) so that Japan can help its allies under the guise of "collective self-defense".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33532557

From Burma to Nagasaki: the man who walked through hell

Related Stories